Sony releases three premium 'G Master' lenses for FE-mount

Sony has created a new lineup of lenses for its full-frame cameras known as G Master (GM). These are the company's high-end lenses that sit above its 'G-series' lenses and, as you might imagine, command a premium price. The first three GM lenses include FE 24-70mm F2.8, FE 85mm F1.4 and FE 70-200mm F2.8 OSS.

In addition to the lenses, Sony also released a pair of teleconverters (1.4x and 2.0x) for use with the new 70-200mm F2.8 lens.

At the press conference announcing the new lenses the company placed enormous emphasis on the importance of high resolution and high quality bokeh. Says Senior Technology Manager Mark Weir: "Being a leader in image sensor technologies, we have a unique insight into where sensor and camera technology is going, and we put this insight into our lens design."

Technologies behind G Master lenses

Sony mentioned they're now designing G Master lenses to a 50 lines per mm standard, a step up from the 10 and 30 lines/mm MTF traces we're used to seeing. Regarding bokeh, Sony explained that the lifelike nature of an image in either still or video is determined by the nature of the transition from in-focus to out-of-focus areas, and that an abrupt shift between the sharp region and the background can look artificial. Their research shows that this often comes down to a lack of precision in the preparation of the lens elements, and less than optimal positioning the optical cavity. Sony indicated that G Master lenses can be shaped to within 1/100th of a micron of their design spec to address this problem. 11 aperture blades on the new 85mm and 70-200mm lenses also indicate a serious commitment to smooth out-of-focus areas.

Additionally, each G Master lens employs a different drive mechanism for optimal AF performance. The 24-70mm uses a Direct Drive Supersonic motor (SSM), which we've previously noted to confer incredibly fast, accurate, and silent AF to the FE 35mm F1.4 lens. Sony boasts this focus motor to offer 0.01mm precision of focus group placement. The 85mm F1.4 uses a ring drive. The 70-200 sports a dual implementation: two focus groups at either end of the lens are drive by different actuators. A ring drive SSM drives the front AF group while dual linear motors drive a floating rear group. The result is fast continuous autofocus and silent AF for video, as well as in impressive minimum focus distance of <1m.

Sony also emphasized their development of advanced simulation techniques that make it possible to control things like bokeh right from the design stage. Previously, it was difficult to judge the effects of optical design without first building the lens - simulation technologies now help Sony see the effects of iterations on the optical design.

These lenses feature dust and moisture resistance, and also dedicated control buttons like AF/MF and Focus Hold that will be ergonomically useful and make for a more DSLR-like experience. The 85mm F1.4 also has an aperture ring that can be switched between click and non-click functionality.

The first G Master lenses will be available in March, with the 24-70mm listing for $2200 and the 85mm listing for $1800 in the U.S. The 70-200mm will follow in May, with pricing yet to be determined.

Sony’s new brand includes three new E-mount full frame lenses including a 24-70mm constant F2.8 standard zoom, an 85mm F1.4 prime and a 70-200mm constant F2.8 telephoto zoom. Representing the ultimate blend of high resolution and beautiful bokeh, the new lenses feature Sony’s innovative optical element technology, design and calibration. This allows them to produce still image and video content with a level of detail and expression that has never before been possible.

“The new G Master brand represents the finest and most impressive group of lenses that Sony has ever brought to market,” said Neal Manowitz, Vice President of Digital Imaging at Sony Electronics. “With our knowledge of what the future will bring for digital imaging, we have designed these lenses and can ensure that the G Master brand will inspire and ‘wow’ photographers and videographers for years to come.”

New FE24-70mm F2.8 GM Standard Zoom Lens

Featuring some of the most advanced lens technologies in market today, the new FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM (model SEL2470GM) is the ultimate choice for those seeking the highest possible optical performance for portrait, travel and event photography or even simple everyday shooting1.

The new lens is built with three aspherical elements including a newly developed, extremely precise XA (extreme aspherical) element that reduces aberration and delivers the ultimate resolution throughout the entire zoom range and aperture range, as well as from corner to corner of all image files. Additionally, an ED (Extra-low-Dispersion) glass element and Super ED glass element keep chromatic aberration to a minimum while maximizing resolution and bokeh without any unnatural coloration.

The lens features a 9-bladed aperture that maintains a near circular shape at all settings and is coated with Sony’s original Nano AR coating to suppress reflections and ensure spectacular contrast and clarity.

The new FE24-70mm F2.8 GM lens has a direct drive SSM (Super Sonic Wave Motor) focusing system that works with incredible efficiency thanks to a new set of algorithms that positions the lens elements quickly and accurately. The motor is smooth and quiet, making it an ideal choice for shooting both still images as well as movies.

To maximize usability, the lens is dust and moisture resistant and features a compact, streamlined design that includes AF/MF switch as well as focus hold, zoom lock and hood release buttons.

Two new matching filters for the FE24-70mm F2.8 GM lens have also been introduced, including the VF-82MP MC protector and VF-82CPAM Circular PL filter..

New FE 85mm F1.4 GM Telephoto Prime Lens

Designed as the ultimate portrait lens, the long-awaited new FE 85mm F1.4 GM telephoto prime lens (model SEL85F14GM) strikes a perfect balance between resolution and bokeh in a compact package.

The lens features a new XA (extreme aspherical) element as well as three ED glass elements that work together to ensure that the in-focus areas are captured in extremely high resolution while the surrounding out-of-focus areas dissolve smoothly into a beautiful soft backdrop. It has a circular aperture with 11 blades – the most ever used in an α lens – that ensures bokeh is smooth and visually appealing. Externally, the new model has Sony’s original Nano AR Coating, which is of particular importance in a portrait lens as it reduces flare and ghosting, even with backlit subjects or similarly challenging lighting conditions.

For accurate autofocusing, the FE 85mm F1.4 GM lens includes a ring drive SSM motor system that provides ample power and speed to drive the lens’ large, heavy focus group. It’s also equipped with two position sensors to support flawless focus control of the large, heavy lens elements.

This new professional portrait lens is dust and moisture resistant and also has an aperture ring with on/off switchable click stops that can be adjusted based on whether a user is shooting still images or movies. It also has an AF / MF switch and a focus hold button.2

New FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS Telephoto Zoom

Covering the frequently used 70-200mm focal range, the new FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS telephoto zoom lens (model SEL70200GM) offers extremely high rendering, AF performance and image stabilization, making it a versatile choice for shooting wildlife, sports, weddings and a variety of other events and locations1.

The new flagship telephoto zoom model delivers extraordinary sharpness and clarity throughout the entirety of its zoom range thanks to its three advanced lens elements including XA, Super ED and ED glass components, as well as its Nano AR coating.

The new FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS lens features a floating focusing system – implemented in an α zoom lens for the first time – that contributes to an impressive minimum focusing distance of merely 0.96m and ensures AF performance is optimized during both still and video shooting. The lens includes a SSM (Super Sonic Motor) plus dual linear motors that work together to move large lens elements quickly - a task that requires a high level of drive control and ensures focus accuracy. The new model also has built in Optical SteadyShot™ image stabilization for capturing sharp, blur-free subjects at all focal lengths and a rotating tripod mount that allows the camera to be quickly removed from a connected tripod as needed.

The new 70-200mm telephoto zoom lens is dust and moisture resistant with an additional fluorine coating added to the front lens. It also has a focus hold button as well as a focal range limiter.

Sony has also announced new compact 1.4x and 2x Teleconverters – models SEL14TC and SEL20TC respectively – that offer even greater reach while maintaining the overall streamlined design and feel of the 70-200mm lens.3

Pricing and Availability

The new FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Standard Zoom and 85mm F1.4 GM Telephoto prime lenses will be available in March for about $2,200 and $1,800, respectively. In Canada, they will be sold for $2,900 CA and $2,400 CA, respectively.

The new 70-200mm F2.8 GM Telephoto Zoom Lens and its compatible 1.4x and 2x Teleconverters will be available in May. Pricing is not yet available for these models.

The new G Master Series of interchangeable lenses will be sold at a variety of Sony authorized dealers throughout North America.

1. A software update may be required to provide compatibility of lenses with some cameras. See the Sony support site www.esupport.sony.com for additional details.

2. Limitations apply to AF operation when shooting movies with certain camera bodies. A software update may be required to provide AF compatibility of FE 85mm F1.4 GM with some cameras during movie shooting. See the Sony support site for lens/body compatibility details.

Hmm, might still be early days for the EF lens line-up but this is shaping up rather nicely. Give it a few more years and it will be one heck of a full frame system. Let's hope that they will keep on expanding the E mount lens line-up with some bright quality glass as well.

As an A7RII user, with adapted Canon L series lenses, this initially looked like my attempt to migrate systems was finally starting to happen. The truth is, this is happening too slowly. Only one of these lenses is stabilised and it looks like they are all going to be expensive for what are only "me too" lenses. There is a long way to go before you can say E-mount is a professional system.

I will be hanging on to my Canon lenses and 5D MkIII body for the foreseeable future.

I'm also an a7RII user with adapted Canon L series lenses (and native FE lenses) and I have a 7D DSLR which I plan to keep along with my Canon lenses. For example, why would I sell my 70-200 f/4L IS EF lens which works very well on the a7RII.

Unlike you, I am amazed at the development pace of new FE lenses and how well Sony and Zeiss are filling out the gaps in their product line.

The a7RII has IBIS so why would you want lens stabilization on, for example, the new 24-70 f/2.8. IBIS should be more than adequate and lens IS would add weight and complexity. Owners of older a7 models without IBIS are the only ones negatively impacted.

It is interesting to see what Olympus is now doing. They are moving from IBIS-only to the Sony IBIS/Lens IS model, using lens IS to improve on IBIS. So far, they are only doing this on their new 300 f/4 lens, where there is a need for the best possible stabilization.

1. Why from 40th second they show center and corner crops both of which actually look like are not in focus and very soft? Is it how bad the lens is in focus?

2. On 52nd second they compare 11-blade aperture with 7-blade aperture. Why? do they presume they compete with their own poor proposition? Canon and Nikon use 9-blades if I recall correctly in the competing lenses and that is in lenses that are now several years old. Is there much difference there?

In general my impression is they highlight in the video what fallacies of their own they tried to address but did not look at the state of the competition. Competing against your own poor quality products is rather odd though outside of justifying the price premium and is easy given how poor quality the current lens line up is compared to competition. This is marketing hype thus far. I hope we will get proper reviews soon.

"G Master brand will inspire and ‘wow’ photographers and videographers for years to come" . I doubt it will be for "many" years to come based on the apparent abandonment of the "A mount" and the underwhelming improvements in the APS-C "E mount" system. The system needs a higher spec camera (a7000?) not just an improved a6000, and improved APS-C specific "E-mount" lenses.

Well to be fair, I've had many years of use from A-mount :)That said, I'm not entirely convinced Sony has abandoned A-mount in any significant way since they made the announcement that they would remain committed to it in part of their upcoming still image development road-map.

That said, what I think Sony will do(educated guess) is continue to develope adapters that would provide existing A-mount users with a capacity to make full use of their existing A-mount lenses on Sony mirrorless bodies.

Therefore, my take on this is that Sony is doing the right thing in pursuit of the mirrorless tech, given that their endeavors are likely paving the way for the future of digital photography.

I was really hoping that Sony will use their "engineering genius" to make a small lens to match the small mirrorless camera. Quality wise most advance/pro cameras are not very far apart. "Size really matters" is the idea that some of us got lure to this system.

well there always is the physics you can't get around. certain lenses will be bulky forever. and todays technology adds a lot to image quality and comfort, so even the primes can't be as small as they used to be.

This actually is an argument why Sony's lens may be smaller as its sensor due to the absence of a mirror is positioned closer to the sensor and you can achieve similar F numbers with a smaller lens. But we see the opposite - Sony's is bulkier (both larger and heavier) than Canon's 24-70 F2.8.

>>With the camera it's still small and lighter then any competing full frame zoom system

You are wrong on 'any'. There are many FF cameras that are roughly the same on weight but are of better ergonomics for larger lenses. Here is just one example with native 24-70 F2.8 lens:Sony A7R II: 626gr + 886gr = 1512 grCanon 6D: 770gr + 805 gr = 1575 gr

The weight difference is negligible but due to poor ergonomics of A7R II the hand gets tired much faster with Sony. On Canon 6D you have full grip with all your fingers. On A7R II I only get two fingers with firm grip (assuming index finger is for shutter and other controls). My little finger hangs in the air. My ring finger is on the edge of the camera and has no firm grip. So you grip with only two fingers. And quite often you need to operate the camera with one hand (not holding by the lens with the other hand) because you have to access menu or operate other equipment.

What? Sony is way heavier now? May be we at least get good battery life now with way heavier Sony? Nope, it is still worse on battery despite vertical grip with additional power.What is worse it is still not as comfortable to hold as Canon.

>> a bit lighter then the canon equivalentAnd this is a blatant lie as a generic statement. Canon 24-70 F2.8 L II is both smaller (shorter by over a couple of cm) and lighter than the new Sony's 24-70 F2.8.70-200 F2.8 are roughly the same both size wise and weight wise as 10gr difference for 1.5kg lens is no difference.85mm F1.4... Well, here Canon here has 2 options to choose from Carl Zeiss and from Sigma and Sigma is way lighter and smaller than Sony's.

This lens announcement doesn't seem to be a good match to go along with the announcement of the A6300 since these are FE lenses. Hesitant to buy anything else with an APS-C sensor, seems Sony, and others, seem to be indicating a full frame sensor is likely the future. I mean the whole idea for me was to get smaller, larger lenses kind of defeats the purpose.

An effect happens to the farthest background in that scene where the wobbling element is in operation. I wonder if it is the effect of the wobbling element or of the optical stabilization system, although the wobbling element is supposed to move only when the focus is changing, and also the lens was not hand-held at that moment. Any idea of what that was?

They do not need to. Sony simply catches up with them still and fills the gaps. Sony still has many gaps to close.

Look at DXO lens rating for Sony and Canon as an example. You will see that Sony has very poor line up when it comes to sharpness and well behind competition. It is still years behind to close that gap.

Yes, first sign that Sony has not really done and still requires a few generations to get it right. But would still be interesting to see proper reviews though not sure I fully trust dpreview after how much they acclaimed Sony cameras while they really do not live up to my expectations on rather mundane points like autofocus even in the latest A7R II. We shall see soon.

I think I read in a previous interview with Sony on DPR they said they were going to introduce fast lenses as they felt they were lacking in the E mount range.

OK but why an 85mm F1.4 and not an 85mm F2? Most F1.8/F2 lenses of this focal length are pretty small (Nikon F1.8 for example) whereas as soon as you go F1.4 (or 1.2) the size and weight goes up a lot. D.o.F is still very shallow at F2. Sensors are so good we don't really need the extra stop for noise control.

F2 is still usefully fast and a smaller F2 lens would be more in keeping with the smaller form factor of the A7's.

It's not just Sony. I made a similar point the other day about Sigma's huge 20mm F1.4. The whole industry seems obsessed with specification and beating or matching the other guy. It's as if they are frightened to be pragmatic and introduce more portable lenses. The don't have to be F4 or F2.8 for primes to be smaller, F2 would be a good compromise in my view.

@Dave. I agree with you about the 85mm lens. Not only would f2 provide enough light for these sensors, but the 85mm focal length, natively, already has a relatively shallow DoF. However, I cannot agree with the comment about Sigma's new 20mm. Because it's rare to see a fast lens at that focal length, and I think that shallow DoF at 20mm has a very unique effect. Also, I think that Sigma is trying very hard to build up their lens' 'stock', and create a better reputation for themselves with the Art lineup, by offering unique, quality lenses.

This is as much a consequence of the market type(pro's vs entry level) than that of the equipment in question. Which I suspect will improve as Sony gains more credible market shares. ie, if the next itteration of Sony mirrorless camera makes use of the latest tech. then I could see Sony gaining shares in the prosumer market. ie, high resolution, responsive systems, with dependable low light AF will now provide viable tools for wedding and sports photographers type of thing...

Most important here is the discrepancy. Sony A7R II is a might have been great camera. Its true market should be in these better and larger lenses that would allow to open up its resolution potential. But A7R II's ergonomics are not that well suited for such lenses.

So my take here is different to any you mentioned. The camera itself should have been designed for larger lenses from the ground up. That is apart from other issues A7R II has that I would not go in here.

Can you please quit harping on the battery life? Get over it people! I can shoot my A7RII with any lens and consistantly get a minimum of 400+ full res 80MP uncompressed ARW images with a single battery, in most cases 450+ shots! If your only complaint is battery life it sounds like your just to lazy to to swap out a battery (which takes me under 5 sec.), once or , god forbid twice a day.... There are several post here and elsewhere with tips on how to set up the menus to maximize battery life without impacting any performance of the camera. Sorry but if your missing shots because of a battery change then your not paying very good attention to battery meter which is visible as 1 to 100% in the viewfinder every time you take a picture.... If you are missing important shots it's all on you, The Photographer, not the camera !!!

Please kindly do not tell me what I should not consider problematic and what I should or should not say, my fuhrer.

When I had to go through 3 fully charged batteries and ran out of the third one in a day shoot and lost some precious moments and shots in the event that will not be repeated it is a problem. If you have plenty of time and ability to replay moments you shoot then fine. I cannot afford such poor camera behavior. Events and people do not stop for poor Sony.

And you are wrong and stupid if you think it is 'about being lazy to swap batteries'. It is not. Swapping batteries loses moments in an event. Swapping batteries may not be easy and fast with some additional equipment such as rigs, gimbals, etc. You also are damn wrong to assume I do not know what consumes power, menus, etc.

Battery life on Sony cameras is crap. And that is not photographer's fault. It is first camera in ages I had that is so poor on battery life. No hiding, no silencing this demeaning fact.

>> 400+ full res 80MP uncompressed ARW images with a single battery, in most cases 450+ shots!

This is just downright laughable to seriously (and I presume you did not joke and did not smile when claiming that) claim good. Here is real life statistic from the most recent all day wedding event (not a record - just the most recent):- 503 shots for the morning part- 2493 shots for the day and evening part

Your example of good makes me laugh out loud. You made my day on funny claims of good.

>> If your only complaint is battery lifeNo, to name a few:1) Poor low light low contrast AF - first camera in many years where I cannot rely on AF. It often fails to focus completely in low light low contrast.2) Uncompressed raw rather than lossless compressed. I am forced to convert to dng to speed up working with large shoots and save space - dng is lossless and almost half the size typically. Never needed to do that with other cameras - not for these reasons.3) Completely unresponsive and slow when writing with fast card (lossless compressed should have been instead of two poor options - lossy compressed and uncompressed) and generally slow in many cases. It is the first camera in many years with this serious fallacy.4) Awfully slow review.5) Blue highlight clipping - frequent issue in some events with blue sources of light. Sony knows of this with their cameras for many years and has not yet sorted it. It was admitted by Sony support.

6) Serious red fringing in certain conditions. Uncompressed raw was supposed to fix it. Well, it did not. Made it better but still I had awful cases of very wide (up to 15 pixels) red fringing where red is not present in real life. And that was with uncompressed raw shooting.7) Poor ergonomics with larger lenses. Larger camera would have been better.8) Poor movie button ergonomics.9) Terrible rolling shutter in Super 35 4K making it not usable for many serious use cases.10) Subpar chroma sampling - only half sampling of what Nikon and Canon cameras do.

I can keep going on but am bored to split messages due to the length limit. The above is enough to see that poor battery life is far not the only complaint but is only one of a myriad.

I'v been shooting with Canon's 5D3, Nikon D800E and the A7R and R2. Anyone not getting superior shots from the Sony is not processing them correctly. There is absolutely nothing inferior from that camera's sensor. Keep in mind Adobe Raw does not do the best job with files from the Sony. Capture one makes a huge difference in fidelity from that camera. As far as batteries goes, that's the price to pay for a tiny body. The Nikon D800E has almost the same battery issue because it's that sensor that seems to suck them dry. The little Sony A7R is a marvelous tool for many jobs, but certainly not the only choice. I have them all and use the best tool for the job at hand. They all have their advantages. If I had to pick only one to keep, it would be the Sony. I do agree however, the large Sony G lenses, are a compromise to it's small size. I too would like to see high quality f2 options to keep the sizes down.

There is. Poor low light low contrast AF is inferior and it is sensor in the case or A7R II you mention since it has on-sensor AF points. It is way inferior.Blue highlight clipping is also an inferior sensor.Terrible rolling shutter is also an inferior sensor.

The rest of the things I listed above are not as much to do with the sensor as with the camera around the sensor.

Having been shooting thousands of shots on jobs since the camera was released, I have never seen any of the color fringing, blue highlight issues you mention. Sounds more like optical issues rather than sensor problems. DXO still rates the sensor #1. Remember to use C1 Pro and not LR or Camera Raw before you blame the sensor for issues. Hopefully Adobe will catch up soon. Low light AF, I can't comment on as I use mostly MF lenses which are very easy to focus even in very dark conditions.

Steve Sanacore,If you read carefully I did not say that color fringing is a sensor issue (and just one message above yours I listed what I believe are sensor issues from the ten points I listed) but blue highlight clipping is a sensor issue.Blue highlight is especially awful one as it can cover with nasty artifacts big parts of the scene. And this is not just hypothetical. You can get such light in events.

If you want to test it:1) get a source of bright blue light2) sit a person in normal light and then move a source of blue light to the person's face so that blue light overwhelms the regular light.

The artifacts are awful with clear clipping and it is a long known issue with Sony sensors and Sony support even admitted it. Unfortunately it is still not addressed.

miksto, I can't argue with you as I've never tested it in a lab, but I have yet to see the issue myself even in extreme conditions. You don't mention what raw converter you are using. Try C1 Pro and see if the issue goes away. I love and use Adobe LR and PS, but not for Sony A7R2 raw files so far. Hopefully they will catch up soon.

What raw converter? The issue is seen in video shoots. No raw involved! All in-camera and straight out of camera. The issue is long known with Sony cameras and Sony support acknowledged it many years ago and it is still present with new cameras. The only way to work around it is to set color temperature to something ridiculously high like 9900K and then correct it back in post processing. And that is a rubbish workaround.

It is also rubbish to refer to a raw converter that tries to fix camera and lens issues (and by the way it will not fix blue highlight clipping as that is a truly lost information - it is clipped). Such 'fixed' raw is no longer raw as such. It is possible to fix some issues to some degree in post processing even without 'special' raw converter. But it still means the lens/camera are of poor quality if they had to be fixed with such workarounds.

Seems to me that most if not all the cameras and lenses from the major manufacturers are great products,full frame or whatever.Who is using the equipment will make the difference.Some of the shots I see here and elsewhere I could only dream of doing no matter what you gave me to use.I suspect I am not the only one.

Really wanted a 1.4 TC that would work with the 70-200 F4 G. Other issues for professional lenses like this is the repairability and adjustability that seem to be absent in previous models. No serious pro would buy lenses like this knowing that they would become unrepairable with a few hard knocks

There seems to a dearth of wide to super-wide angle (primes or zooms) lenses for the APS-C format, such as the A6000/6300. By that I mean around 12-16mm (18-24mm FF equivalent). From Sony, I can only think of the SEL16F28 16mm f/2.8 pancake, which is of mediocre performance, and the 10-18mm f/4 OSS zoom with its f4 maximum aperture. My hope is that Sony will address this with the G-Master range at some future point.

And even then you get Nikon and Canon with excellent battery life against Sony with too small battery to be dependent on it. So even that is not quite fair. I never run out of battery life on Canon camera on long shoot outs. On A7R II I once ran out of 3 batteries on a day shoot. What is more it wasted me good time and good shots while the time passed by and I was replacing batteries.

And I cannot stop complaining about poor ergonomics with better lenses (for the time being mostly Canon's) - larger camera would have had a much better grip.

Conclusion? size and weight are not much different with competition but battery life and ergonomics are poor.

>> Both of you are not bring fair. The actually competition to A7R II are 5DS R and D810

This is a wrong assumption. Examples I gave aimed only to demonstrate that weight may not be different depending on specific case. Whether it is the right tool for specific use case is a different matter and I did not say that it is for all cases.

As for 'real competition' it is not any specific camera. What is real competition depends on use case. And it may not be 5DSR or D810. My impression you seem to assume (judging by your selection of cameras) that use case is solely driven by resolution but that is hardly true in many real life use cases. In most cases you do not need high resolution and in fact it only hampers your processing speed. Though out of the trio you mentioned I would consider Nikon D810 best balanced on my typical scenarios.

I love the small size of the Sony body but agree one of the penalties is short battery life. I think the battery grip is a necessity in the field. The Nikon D800 had a similar problem even with a bigger battery. Those large sensors really suck the octane! I wonder how the Canon 5DSR does on batteries?

Since so many Sony users are Canon users, the comparisons are plentiful in the forums. So far, Sony lenses seem to be on par with Canon with some better than others. Canon's 24-70 2.8 will be the one to beat and even if Sony's version is as good as Canon's it will be a winner. Many of Sony's lenses are Zeiss branded already, and Zeiss also makes an AF line for Sony called Batis, and a MF line called Loxia.

@mikstoBut that comparison is assuming 6D matchs A7R II which it cannot. Putting the 930g 5DS R in 6D's place and SONY is 200-300g lighters again and you can put on smaller primes while still getting IS.

"Matches or not" depends on your use cases. In some cases it exceeds and in some cases it is behind. It all depends on use case. One example where Canon 6D exceeds is low light AF performance that is incredibly poor on A7R II up to the point it failing in normal evening indoors scenarios in absence of really high contrast inside focusing area which is awful for a modern camera. In this respect A7R II was the first camera I played with where I cannot rely on AF often (I can give other scenarios where it fails but that is not the point here).

Depending on specific use case I could have used a different camera for weight comparison. My only aim in the example though was to demonstrate weight difference is not necessarily there.

Similarly once you start measuring A7R II against Nikon and Canon heavyweights you may find A7R II is far not a match to them in many scenarios and is let down seriously. All depends on use case.

>> in every use case, you bias Canon/Nikon over Sony and you always look at the worst side. That's not fair

Not in every case. If you only ever shoot in good light, need high resolution and do not care about sports then A7R II is great.If you shoot in low light and always have time for manual focus then A7R II may still be good.So not in every case. But my point is different - see my comment to your next comment just below.

>>We're talking about top of the line cameras of each brand within the same price segment

Same price segment? The mentioned in discussion of autofocus Canon 6D is 2.5 times cheaper. I do not see how it is the same price segment. My expectation with the camera that is 2.5 times more expensive that it should have at least better AF if not way better, but definitely not worse than way cheaper cameras. Am I unreasonable in expecting that? I doubt that.A7R II is not a reliable shooter in low light low contrast when you have no time for manual focus.

Even though FE lenses are compatible with the APS-C cameras in a nominal since, you do not get the same resolution, that you get with the FF sensor. This is evident if you study DXO's tests of lenses tested on both classes of camera. For people with APS-C cameras, these lenses will not likely offer any advantage nearly strong enough to justify even half the price. Since Sony switched over to E-mount for FF cameras, they have barely even given lip service to the early adopters of E-mount. We have several prime lens options that are very good, but no really good zooms other than the big one. Still no "standard" zoom that comes anywhere close to doing justice to the high resolution 20 or 24 Mpixel sensor. I want a really good standard zoom, for APS-C, and affordable. It's a no-brainer. Been waiting now for too many years. I suppose it's time to give up and move on to a different camera, and probably a different brand.

Please clarify. Do you mean FF on APS-C work better than lenses designed specifically for the smaller sensor? If this what you mean, I have to ask why you think this. From a couple of standpoints perhaps: light falloff and geometric distortion. But certainly not from standpoint of overall sharpness. Tamron, for example, recommends specifically against using FF lens on APS-C cameras, and like I already said, if you study tests of lens sharpness on DXO Mark, it is obvious that any E-mount FF lens will produce a less sharp image on an APS-C camera compared to a FF camera, for same or similar sensor resolution. In fact, it is likely true that the 70200G is the only FE lens that offers any significant advantage over the typical APS-C lens, on an APS-C camera. Some of the other FE lenses are excellent on FF bodies, but that better performance vanishes when used on APS-C bodies. Study their tests. It's obvious.

I wanted to add this: You almost certainly will get a sharper, higher resolution image wih these new lenses even when using them on an APS-C camera, compared to the other lenses presently available. Even compared to the 70200G at its best aperture setting. But, that combination of lens and camera will not give a good cost-benefit solution. Yes, cost is subjective, as is benefit, but cost/benefit ratio can be assessed and a number assigned to it, and comparisons of different cost/benefit ratios are objective. By the time you have two of these very costly lenses, you could replace your APS-C camera with one of the newer FF cameras and buy a couple of the existing FE lenses, and you'll end up with sharper images compared to your APS-C camera with one of these newer, costlier lenses. This is almost certainly true, and before factoring in the additional cost saving by selling your present stuff.

I thought Sony was supposed to give us an updated road map. While I applaud sony's desire to stay ahead of their own sensor and camera development with these lenses and while I am tempted by the 24-70mm GM and the price is very tempting, I will hold off for a while.

I hope they will give us GM roadmap soon. It would be great to see a GM 24-120 or 24-105mm f/4 lens...it could even start at 28mm...

And after all the talk about light weight of Sony cameras (at the cost of poor battery life and poor ergonomics).Looking at the example of most common general purpose 24-70mm lens it comes larger and heavier than corresponding Canon lens. Sony's 'light' camera will feel awkward with these lenses. Poor ergonomics.

The size of a lens doesn't make small cameras less balanced if you hold the camera and lens correctly. And if you do, then added weight from a large and bulky camera will just make it worse when working handheld for longer periods with such a combo.

>> The size of a lens doesn't make small cameras less balanced if you hold the camera and lens correctly

Somehow this reminds me of the Apple blunder: "you do not hold it right". I already tried with Canon lenses and metabones adapter and Sony cameras are very uncomfortable COMPARED to Nikon and Canon counterparts with these kind of lenses. Here come Sony lenses that will be similar to Canon+metabones on Sony bodies now. It will be uncomfortable. I wish they made bigger cameras to have more battery and better grip.

>> You didn't even see the lens in person, but you allready know Sony will be struggling to match a Canon?

What is so difficult about it? I mentioned the specific points where Sony struggles to match - weight and size. I also mentioned optical resolution is unknown yet. What is so mediumy about it? It is all based on already known facts - no fiction, no imagination. Or did you not read what I said?

miksto: Sony made the lens optically complex on purpose. It would be super easy for them to take, for example, an A-mount lens design and add some blank space behind the last element, but they decided for more complex design. That's not "struggling', that's purpose. They allready have the lightweight alternative. Speaking about Canon's resolving power being superior is also nonsense, noone even tried the lens yet.

mixtro wrote: "Somehow this reminds me of the Apple blunder: "you do not hold it right"."

For us who have used film SLR cameras with all kind of lenses, and now A7 series cameras, we do not have trouble using small/light and large/heavy lenses. In fact, cameras were designed to hold the left hand under the lens long before digital entered the scene, and those cameras were the size and weight of the A7 models.

Something says me that you are not using such gear. But you are in good company. The photo forums are crowded with people who think a lot about what might be a problem. ;-)

I have not been using film cameras for about 15 years now when I first ventured into digital and digital those days was crap.

What you say still does not make ergonomics good for such larger lenses. It is just not as comfortable as Nikon's Canon's. May be if you compare it to something even worse in ergonomics - like some dated equipment you had - it will shine. But not if you compare it to the good ones around. And it is always better to benchmark against good rather than against bad.

>> They allready have the lightweight alternative. Speaking about Canon's resolving power being superior is also nonsense, noone even tried the lens yet.

I did not say anywhere about superior Canon's resolving power compared to these specific lenses. I said (exact quote): "we are yet to see Sony's optical resolution but so far Sony was poor on optical resolution front".You are not much of an attentive reader, are you? Just enjoy commenting without reading? Second time in a row you do that blunder.

On "light weight alternatives"... Sony has a problem. For example the current 24-70mm F4 lens' optical resolution as measured by DXO on A7R is 15 megapixels. 15 megapixels is not even good enough for 4K video in Super 35 mode on A7R II let alone for 42 megapixel photos. Not really an alternative.

Best native Sony lens resolves 32 megapixels (DXO) and it is a prime 90mm. Well... Just to give you perspective: Canon has 19 lenses that have optical resolution between 32 and 45 megapixels.

But at least Sony's new G 90mm macro beats competition. So definitely this G-series is something to watch after. I wait LensRentals test runs since they test multiple units and sample variance. Test results from "Golden Samples" does not too tell much.

>> Why not leave the Sony lenses for those who are building a Sony system...

Everything is learnt in comparison. I am not any brand lover and am looking around on ongoing basis. I thus am just doing that and am critically comparing what is on offer now.

>> But at least Sony's new G 90mm macro beats competition

Really? How does it? It is the best optical resolution (32 megapixels) that Sony offers. Yet Canon has 19 lenses in the optical resolution range of 32-45 megapixels. So it does not really beat competition and only shows how far behind Sony is yet on lenses if even the best of Sony lens line up does not beat competition.Canon EF mount has:1) 85 mm F1.4 Carl Zeiss lens for Canon EF (hugely expensive) that resolves 41 megapixels.2) very cheap Sigma 85mm F1.4 that resolves 33 megapixels.Sony's G 90mm F2.8 is still behind the best. It does not beat competition.

We are yet to see how good the new lenses are but all the old ones are behind the competition including 90mm.

@miksto, The Sony G 90mm macro has the best resolution among ~100mm macro lenses. It is near pointless to compare different focal lengths to each other.

But you clearly have a point, Canon has far larger (and often even more affordable) lens portfolio with several best-in-class lenses. Sony has one (the 90mm macro). Also, 3rd party lens makers still prioritize Canon and Nikon mounts over E-mount although E-mount support is improving.

I could not say more about the importance of lens/body balance. I have used both a lens heavy/light body and balanced lens/body setup extensively and while the 1st setup is usable, i would choose the 2nd setup any day. Precision control of zoom/manaul rings are harder to manage if you can't take the weight off with your right hand.

>> The Sony G 90mm macro has the best resolution among ~100mm macro lenses.

Jylppy, this is a lie as I already demonstrated above. Sony G 90mm has resolution of 32 megapixels while Canon EF mount 85 mm F1.4 Carl Zeiss has resolution of 41 megapixels.

How is it that in your mind 32 megapixels resolution of Sony G 90mm best when there is 41 megapixels lens at 85mm (closer to 90mm than 100mm you mentioned ) with a third better resolution? You must be kidding yourself.

Further more I mentioned one other cheap lens - cheap Sigma 85mm F1.4 that resolves 33 megapixels - that beats Sony G 90mm on resolution.

Did you not read that or you will now claim that 41 megapixels optical resolution is worse than 32 megapixels?

If you think 5 more millimeters is a great advancement then how about Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM that has 210 more mm of focusing distance and resolves 45 megapixels?

So it only beats due to macro part despite losing on all other fronts? I am sure this makes you proud if you are into lots of macro photography. I am not. I have that Sony lens as well since it is is one of very few that are not as bad as vast majority of Sony native line up but never used it as macro. I would have preferred it had no macro but was an even better lens otherwise.

You could use diffractive optics like those non-innovative folks at Canon and Nikon. I think this non-innovation thing has become a mantra here on DPreview and its not really true. Canikon are still miles ahead on optics and realising way more lenses. Sony is just the leader in electronics (not surprisingly).

You have the choice between F4 lighter version or 2.8 heavier version. It's not like this lens will be your only choice. If you want to go really lightweight, there's the humble 28-70. Choices are good.

Diffractive optics have significant drawbacks in a similar way to mirror lenses - primarily, the bokeh is never as good as a well designed refractive lens.

Diffractive optics can be used to reduce weight and length of a lens - but the lenses that gain the most from it are longer lenses. With wider lenses 100mm and under the size reduction wouldn't be worth it. If you want lighter lenses: buy f/2.8 lenses not f/1.2's. If you want a small light 600mm lens: buy a 600f/8 mirror lens - expecting a 600mm f/4 lens to be the same size and weight as a mirror lens simply isn't possible.

Was just making a point on the non-innovation. Diffractive optics is limited by our ability to manufacture to tolerances as a potential. The same goes for gradient index lenses. Once we can manufacture on a nanoscale these will rapidly replace old curved lenses in much the same way as digital printing replaced process cameras. Finally curved sensors could reduce the number of elements and hence the weight and ironically (for what I was saying earlier) Sony is the leader in that field.

Nanoscale manufacturing is tech we won't see in 20 years. I'm talking about the now. Curved sensors actually make things worse for lens designers, as spherical lenses are designed to project flat images.

Saying that technology is going to make things easy is a colossal mistake, anything new and untested is going to have issues.Imagine if everyone on these forums had to replace every lens they have bought because the only manufacturer making decent sensors starts exclusively making curved sensors that are incompatible with what they call legacy lens designs.

As others have said, Sony did not buy Zeiss. You are correct though that G is a carry over from Minolta, but it is not new. Sony has tagged their top non-Z lenses with G since acquiring Minolta. The word 'Master' after 'G' may be new. I don't remember seeing that before, but a complete guess is that it is probably coming from Marketing to emphasize that this is top shelf. Over the years the meaning of the 'G' designation maybe has been lost.

These sure look sweet, in design as well as specifications! They do beg for a larger flagship FE body, designed to balance with such lenses, with better ergonomics than the A7II line (I just hate the haptics of those cameras anyway).

These G lenses would make Minolta proud... :-)

It is also interesting to note that, in the FE world, the Zeiss brand suddenly becomes a "mid-range" option from a price perspective. Shows a lot of confidence from Sony !

This is the part that caught my eye:"Being a leader in image sensor technologies, we have a unique insight into where sensor and camera technology is going, and we put this insight into our lens design." and "Sony mentioned they're now designing G Master lenses to a 50 lines per mm standard, a step up from the 10 and 30 lines/mm MTF traces we're used to seeing."

Here's a comparo of the Sony, Canon, Nikon, and Leica http://j.mp/1o86gGg For almost everything the Sony comes out as the smallest.You could take a 2nd body with the Sony vs. the Nikon/Canon.The Leica is an interesting one for sure but they are currently where Sony was when they first released the A7x series but then again those shooters play in a somewhat different ballpark to dSLR shooters (wouldn't say no to getting to play with one still).

OMG YOU'RE RIGHT. That's the one BIG thing that keeps me away from Sony. When I've called Sony in the past I always speak to an idiot! It down right painful dealing with them. Their tech is top notch but the way they treat the people that are putting food on their plates could use some work. No battery charger with your flagship camera... What is that!!?? Call me what ever you want but this is why I've looked at FujiX more than Sony. You'll actually talk to someone that cares about their job when you call them. I am a person that actually supports his wife and 2 kids with his camera. No, it doesn't happen everyday but when something goes wrong you want a competent service department to just take care of it. This is something Canon, Fuji and others have over Sony. I know Sony images are technically the best right but I don't care how sharp the images are when I'm fighting with a service department. Your customers don't care how many megapixels your camera has. Give them what they want and they're happy.